Jeff Murphy - USGenWeb BS
Jeff Donald Murphy Aug 28 1947 - May 20 2001
For many years some messages from Jeff Murphy, USGenWeb Founder, resided on GeoCities. With the demise of GeoCities on Oct 25 2009 we are preserving here the below page.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4708/usgenbs.html
Correspondence Relating to my Leaving USGENWEB
To: jpatter@epix.net
From: Jeff Murphy
Subject: The original structure of USGenWeb
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
At 01:14 AM 11/11/96 -0500, joe wrote:
>Take a look at
>
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~pacumber/index.htm
>
>and let me have your comments if you want.
Very nice! It's a good picture of what USGenWeb is shooting for today.
Here's what the differences are:
1. I have from the beginning objected to the inclusion of the Archives as a part of the project. In my view, it should have been a separate project, as it saps the strength of the thrust of USGenWeb: the single entry point to states.
2. You show a direct relationship to the county coordinators. This is currently being attempted, but it is incompatible with the original view. The relationship is with the state coordinators. They in turn manage their own operation, connecting directly to the counties in their state. The reason I turned control of Kentucky over to Nancy Trice at the time all this took place in July was that I wanted no more connection with USGenWeb. They do not in any way control what I put on my page - another reason the
flap over copyrights and the lookup page was so feather-brained. USGenWeb is not an entity that *can* be sued, since it's gooey little fingers don't extend to the county page. There were recommendations made for state coordinators regarding the contents of the county web page, and the sample I created originally required a lookup page, a query page, a common logo, and a return to the state page. Nancy Trice then created a sample which was used as the model, including the same four points. But USGenWeb can only recommend to the state coordinator what the county page will look like; it has no power to enforce such recommendations. That is the responsibility of the state coordinator. Or was. Now, it appears, a movement is afoot to oust state coordinators who ignore such demands from on high. Stupid to offend volunteers like this.
3. Once the relationship of USGenWeb is placed in its proper perspective, some of the other connections you show (which are therefore obviously the provenance of the states and/or counties) such as Genealogical/Historical Societies, Records, Copyright Issues, etc. all go away. This is the crux of what the disagreement was over: the scope of the project. All I was trying to do was get the states up without grafting on all this nonsense,
which was never in the scope of the original design. To see what I think should have happened with the archives and all the rest of it, take a look at the Kentucky Biographies Project. It currently has over 3,000 biographies online. It is not within the scope of the KYGenWeb Project, but provides to them as much support as we know how. There is not even a requirement that the counties in KYGenWeb use a direct link to it on their
page.
4. There is one big issue that is completely missing from your chart, which, once John Rigdon and I got the automated query system in place, was the only goal not addressed completely, and that is the idea of an interconnected set of databases. Our intent was to provide a way to link gedcom information between existing online databases without having to embed the link in the individual's notes. John and I and Pam Carey were
working on a solution to this, and had a group of three test databases to try it on. I'm sure John can provide you with details, if he is still working on the project, but I imagine it was dropped while all these other issues were brought to "consensus" (the major issue behind the coup) and grafted on the project.
That summarizes the differences between USGenWeb as it was originally envisioned and as currently defined.
Good luck tracking the tentacles of this thing. The project was meant merely to get the states in place, and to provide support for them as they got their counties online. It was never intended to *have* tentacles. The addition of them to the original streamlined version of the project was obviously viewed by some people as desirable. Not me. It's the kind of thing I've seen done on other systems projects, when people come in that
don't really understand that the time for new development has passed, and that simple maintenance is all that is required to keep the system viable. I believe that this encumbrance of the project is almost biblical; now we only need await the pruning of the olive tree, where the bad fruit is cast into the fire and burned. :-) But then, I always did have visionary ideas.
To: Bonnie Baker-Palmer
From: Jeff Murphy
Subject: Re: Jeff Murphey, where are you?
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
At 05:05 AM 11/21/96 +0100, Bonnie Baker-Palmer wrote:
>Hi!! Are you the Jeff Murphey who started the GenWeb? (If so, read on,
>if not, please ignore!)
I'm the one. Hi, Bonnie.
>I've been told by a lot of people that you were "booted" off the
>GenWeb. The other people swear that you took it upon yourself to
>retire. I want to know who is telling the truth here. I'm looking for
There was a coup. A group of individuals got together because they didn't like the way the project was going, and through a series of crafted messages left me the alternative of kicking them off the project or leaving myself. Either way, I could see they were not going to let the project finish its normal life-cycle, and would end up causing so many problems that it would completely alter the focus of the project.
So I resigned.
Here is what I said to someone else who asked a similar question:
It may be a year from now; it may be twenty years from now. But at some point, the character of one of these individuals will come up in conversation. And everything they have said and done to destroy the USGenWeb Project in their own selfish desire to see the project run "their" way will be exposed. So if you think that my brief reference to the coup on my web page in some way demeans me, you are mistaken. It is just a reminder that as creator of the project, as the one who one might suppose had the most information on the steps that were taken by these people, there will never be any kind of acceptance of "their" project. I make it clear that the USGenWeb Project is not what I intended, that I do not support the guerilla actions of these people, and that turning over rocks is not a negative thing if it exposes corruption as deep as theirs. If I could figure out a way to make them pay for what they've done, I would. Since I can't, I'm limited to exposing them for what they are - and distancing my name from the people who brought you the so-called Archive, and the copyright protection scare.
They seem quite worried about this exposure. They think it is defamation. But an honest reporting of dishonesty has ever been condemned by those exposed. If they show up as less than honorable - well, repentance is an avenue open to anyone. So far, none of them have seen that as necessary. Up to them.
>being called in the "Civil War". I want to know from you, what do you
>think? Should we all turn our databases over to John Rigdon & his
>proposed "non-profit organization" corporation as has been proposed?
Hmm. First I've heard of it.
He wants the databases turned over? Or is this something to do with the project he and I were working on: the connection of the various databases? Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this particular issue to give you a reasonable answer at this point.
I understand they are hoping to incorporate. Well, if Kentucky decides to participate, I'll pull my web page. When I left USGenWeb, I also resigned my position as project leader of KYGenWeb, because I wanted nothing to do with the people left in charge. Needless to say, no one is going to be incorporating *my* database.
I'm sorry if this isn't what you were hoping for by way of an answer. The whole problem with the group that took over and maintains control is that they kept wanting to graft crap onto the Project, starting with the Archives. It's just one thing after another, controlled only by delusions of grandeur - which of course means not at all.
The project goal was simple: a single entry point to all the counties in the U.S. It was never intended to replace the many groups of people working to make the Web a better place for all of us. It was never intended to become a power struggle between the Project and everyone else. They are destroying the project in their search for control.
To: jpatter@epix.net
From: Jeff Murphy
Subject: Re: KYGEN: change in web page
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
At 11:46 PM 11/10/96 -0500, joe wrote:
>It would be nice if you could get rid of the bitterness on your county
>page. It doesn’t help you, believe me. SMILE. GenWeb is doing great
No, no, no. Bitterness is what I feel for these poor sons of bitches. What you see on my page is a statement of fact. It doesn't hurt me, believe me.
You have no idea the depths of my feelings on this. You may have meant to help with your suggestion, but I tell you frankly, I intend to see damage done to the individuals I hold responsible for this takeover. One of the major steps to this will be to name names, identify netmail threats, and show how systematically these people subverted a project and destroyed its focus. One of the advantages of being the interested party is that, some day, someone will want to know what "really" happened, and that someone will ask me. They can hardly avoid it; there was no one else in a position to know what was going on, except the conspirators.
Thanks for pushing a real hot button. :-) Please don't do it any more.
To: "Jim Murphy" ,
From: Jeff Murphy
Subject: Re: USGenWeb & splits & History
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
At 03:11 PM 11/22/96 -0800, Jim Murphy wrote:
I don't know what you are responding to of mine, if anything. I have said nothing about this publicly since July. But to try to answer your questions:
>(1) How was USGenWeb first (for lack of better word) organized or at
>least the statement of the purpose of USGenWeb being.
The only intent was to provide a page of links to all the states, so that there would be a single entry point for all U.S. genealogy. That was it! All these add-ons are the result of the coup.
>(2) Was there a coordinating committee set up? and who were they is
>done.
I was the coordinating committee. None was set up because none was needed.
>(3)Was there ever a statement claiming ownership or whatever of state >sites or even counties?
The USGenWeb Project was set up to mirror what had been done in Kentucky. The job was to find state coordinators, and to show them how it was done, based on my experience in KY. The state pages were encouraged to look alike, in that a table was used. The state coordinators were encouraged to recommend a standard format for the county pages that was working in KY which I had developed. I sent out a sample packet. (I don't think I have it any more, but if anyone does, it contains the kind of basic information we were distributing at the time. No, I deleted it.) There were four requirements: a common logo, a query page, a lookup page, and a return to the state page. Other than that, the Project could not possibly direct the actions of individuals putting up their own pages. Or so I thought.
After awhile Nancy Trice put together a very nice sample page, so I directed everyone to hers instead of mine.
>(4) Jeff what is the history of you're stepping aside. (Remember I've
There were a number of individuals who were giving me flak about wanting to graft additions onto the project. Frankly, I had two choices: I could kick them out of the project, which I felt would gut it, or I could resign, which I felt would gut it. :-) Not much choice. It really revolved around the grafting on of the Archives. I felt that was a big mistake, as it would dilute the thrust of the project (we got nearly all the states up in 45 days, which was phenomenal). The problem was, I seemed to have lost control already. The mailing list resided on Dale's server, and he didn't seem interested in letting me have access to the password necessary to boot someone. The archives, created by Linda Lewis (as nominal project head, but in retrospect it is clear that the committee involved in that was the coup group), were to reside on Brian's machine. The only person I felt I could trust was John Rigdon, since he and I had been working together to solve a number of technical issues, and I thought he would not be stampeded by the rest of them. So after I got the queries working, and created a master database containing all the states and counties for the project, he offered to take control for a couple of weeks to give me a break from the sniping. Sounded good to me; I was exhausted with all the details. It wasn't a day before it became obvious that this had all been part of a coup; the gloating was interesting to watch.
Here is some of the correspondence. I had it posted on my web page for awhile.
The USG*nW*b page has been moved. I don't have the current address - or much care what it is, at this point. Below the messages that follow are the last known addresses for the various state pages.
For those of you interested in the process by which I was removed from the USG*nW*b project, please read the following messages. Yes, I'm hacked. When I'm not, this page will disappear.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
1 Aug 1996, in a message to the KYGenWeb Project:
I don't quite know how to put this, but I'll just blurt it right out. I'm resigning as head of the KYGenWeb Project. Nancy Trice has agreed to take over. Nancy has been involved with the project from the beginning, and has certainly paid her dues. She has been one of the hardest working, and I hope you will give her your full support.
Basically, I have made the decision based on my relationship with USGenWeb. It is abundantly clear that there is a coup in progress, and it has hurt me deeply. I may have more to say about that at a later time, once all the facts become clear. And while the one has nothing to do with the other - or should not - the treachery involved has made me realize that I really don't want to manage a project at all. I just want to do what I was doing in the first place, before the creation of the KYGenWeb: working on Muhlenberg Co.
Not that it hasn't been fun. You are some great people. I've had some really good experiences with you. We've grown a lot together, and created something bigger than ourselves. We've slaved over html and ftp and other acronyms together, trying to find out how to do things.
I can think of only one really bad experience, and it wasn't *too* bad - although I understand it is still out there, trying to sow seeds of dissension, writing letters to people.
What happened in USGenWeb is that I got four or five of them. I've never been much of one to be able to withstand criticism, so I decided to walk away. It was a mistake on my part: I should never have allowed the Archives to be grafted on.
It didn't help that the major instigator, George Waller, sent back a message into the usgenweb mailing list today, slightly modified, claiming the work was his own, one I had sent to my replacement in USGenWeb only shortly before.
To say that this was a disappointment is to be reserved beyond my normal dry wit. :-) I don't like failing. In this case, the failure of the USGenWeb project was mine. If I had been more careful in selecting the people involved, this would not have happened. In my defense, let me say that the reason for this was you people in KYGenWeb taught me trust. I learned how great genealogists can be, given a goal. I just assumed, wrongly, that this was true across the board.
I will stay with my county. Thanks in advance for all your sympathy and like that, but don't bother to respond. I just wanted you to know what was going on, as always.
Jeff Murphy
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Return-Path: owner-usgenweb@sirius.dsenter.com
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "George Waller at Home"
Organization: University of Connecticut
To: usgenweb@sirius.dsenter.com
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 12:29:14 -0400
Subject: Re: WEB: BUT!!!!
Priority: normal
Sender: owner-usgenweb@sirius.dsenter.com
Reply-To: usgenweb@sirius.dsenter.com
On 1 Aug 96 at 23:37, Linda Lewis wrote:
> I will end with this note to the USGENWEB list subsribers:
>
> If the majority thinks the archives should not be part of USGenWeb,
> please let me know, and I will pull it out now.. and change the name
> before "USGenWeb Archives" gets to be too well known. The archives
> will remain at the ftp site, of that I have been assured.
Linda (and others),
As we know, Jeff wasn't too happy to have the archives here to begin with, so he would not mind. But, I do think the archives should stay because it is a natural companion to USGenWeb. I even think that Jeff can be rehabilitated and return as our leader. In order for that to happen, however, he needs to do two things:
1. apologize publicly and profusely for his incredibly bad behavior towards certain valued volunteers.
2. agree that he is not the sole owner of USGenWeb. That would require him to agree to the creation of the several committees that Brian suggested (and perhaps more... an Archives committee comes to mind). These committees would not report to him, but could ask him for advice.
Even with those two provisos, we would have to keep a very close eye on him since he took such a rigid stance and it is unknown whether he can change.
I saw in a separate note Jeff's statement that he has resigned as coordinator of the KYGenWeb. My hope is that the KY people will convince him to stay. I had a lot of respect for him, his ideas, and hard work until he became abusive and autocratic last week.
Am off for the afternoon with the family since they think we are on vacation :-))))
Regards, George of MAGenWeb
p.s. I also saw a statement by Jeff claiming that I copied something that he wrote. Am confused, can't imagine what it could be, will ask Jeff about it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
At 02:48 AM 8/4/96 -0400, Nancy Trice wrote:
>Jeff... in the interest of the KyGenWeb project, would you consider taking
>down the US page so this bs will die down?
Oh, it's a little early for that. My bitterness hasn't yet enjoyed the sight of these vermin turning on each other. You saw John's nice polite statement in ROOTS-L? What you didn't see is this:
>Return-Path: jrigdon@mail.gabn.net
>Comments: Authenticated sender is
>From: jrigdon@mail.gabn.net (John C. Rigdon)
>To: jmurphy@teleport.com
>Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 02:45:14 +0000
>Subject: Re: KYGENWEB-L: KY GENWEB-L: Hi......again
>Reply-to: jrigdon@mail.gabn.net
>Priority: normal
>
>Jeff,
>
>You may think you have effectively killed the US GEN WEB project by
>your edict, and the childish way you've chosen to show your
>dissatisfaction, but I can assure you that the project - not just
>KYGENWEB, but the whole project will continue without you. I'm
>truly sorry you've chosen to leave in this way.
>
>Regardless of your protestations to the contrary, nothing has been
>done "in the dark" regarding the archives and it is now and has been
>from the very beginning an integral part of the project.
>
>I do ask that you refrain from further efforts to destroy what we
>have corporately built. I have had numerous comments tonite that
>your actions are doing just that. If you can't have it your way,
>just leave quietly. I feel certain that the project will come
>together in spite of your antics.
>
>Once again, I ask you to remove the things from the state page you
>have written. At no time have we attacked you personally in public,
>and there is no reason to continue to do so.
>
>John Rigdon
Or this one (note how nicely she cc:s the rest of the gang, identifying those truly responsible for the mess they created, yet still unhappy with the consequences of their actions while refusing to acknowledge their responsibility):
>Return-Path: cityslic@ix.netcom.com
>Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 20:29:50 -0700
>From: cityslic@ix.netcom.com (Linda Lewis)
>Subject: Jeff.. stop the mistruths!
>To: Jeff Murphy
>Cc: mcnamara@usit.net
>Cc: hbladm1@uconnvm.uconn.edu
>Cc: maddoc@sirius.dsenter.com
>
><had been assigned, and there were only three not up. Linda Lewis
> got enthusiastic with her TimeToDo project, and wanted it to belong
> to the USGenWeb Project. To make a long story short, she got
> some support people, arranged for storage, and generally set up
> what is now known as the Archive Project. That is where I lost
> control of the project, although I didn't know it.>>
>
>Here we go again...blaming Linda Lewis! Your chronology is completely
>off base. The storage space was first offered to me for VA-Data... I
>asked (after posting a message to the usgenweb list and getting a
>thumbs-up!) to make the space available for the entire usgenweb
>project, not just for VA. It was later that Brian offered the space for
>state/county homepages. YOU, Jeff, are claiming innocence and being
>unaware of the archive project, when in fact, you have been told about
>it all along. You didn't say anything negative about it, and appeared
>to support it with your silence and sometimes reference to it in list
>messages, unTIL George left for vacation. I don't know why you have
>this thing against George............ OH FORGET IT!!
>
>It's senseless to continue trying to straighten out the mess you have
>caused and to set the record straight. You have blatenly twisted the
>truth around, and brought shame to a project you started. A project
>that had, and still has if this nonsense stops, the potential to be the
>best thing that has happened to genealogy on the Internet.
>
>I could stoop as low as you have and post to the public everything that
>proves you knew about the project all along. And claiming, even as of
>yesterday, that you don't know anything about it.
>
>If you want to post this message to the public, which is illegal btw..
>since it's copyrighted by me, you better post the ENTIRE message, and
>not snip away like some biased news reporter. If you DON'T post the
>entire message, legal action is possible.
>
>I'm cc'ing this to others so there will be proof in case it gets to
>that point. You have FLAMED me for the last time, and if you EVER refer
>to me or the archives AGAIN in an open message, it had BETTER be
>factual.
>
>BTW.. take the link for VA, HI, VT, NH and RI off your /states.html
>page. Thank you.
>
>Linda Russell Lewis
>
>***copyright, 1996 by Linda Russell Lewis***
And the one that really ground my gears, and the prime reason the page stays up:
On 3 Aug 96 at 17:07, John C. Rigdon wrote:
> I directed an email to the management at Teleport, suggesting that
> they might be opening themselves up to a libel suit. I have not
> received any reply.
> Perhaps we do need a more strongly written message from those who
> are cited.
>Thanks guys especially for getting this project started. Now, somehow it
>needs to continue with as little interference from typical "orgnization"
>pettiness as possible.
Least we could do.
To: "Jim Murphy"
From: Jeff Murphy
Subject: RE: USGenWeb & splits & History
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
At 03:53 AM 11/23/96 UT, Jim Murphy wrote:
>Hi Jeff;
>I wasn't responding to any of your mail just wanted to get the beginning
>and your side. I do agree with you on everything but the archives. That is
>why I'm really doing the work. That is to make sure that everything
>available is up and available in one central location such as a state
>archives. And I am so adamant about public domain etc. that I am
>making sure that the TexGenWeb archive will remain available and in the
>public domain.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I really think the archives are a good idea, and something that needs to be done. But the question is: does it need to be done under the auspices of USGenWeb - or even, as in TX, under TXGenWeb? No. And the proof of that is the KY Biographies Project.
I just think grafting the archives onto the other project is a mistake. While there is no doubt that the various states will benefit as the archives come on line, there is considerable available information that shows that the archives actually detract from the USGenWeb project. People in the project were focused on bringing up county pages. That was all. It wasn't complicated. It only became so when they were forced to consider issues that had nothing to do with them. So everyone wanted to have their say; committees got started; and pretty soon the energy focused on getting the web connected was diffused. That was and has been my objection to the inclusion of archives in the project all along.
To: David Kelley
From: Jeff Murphy
Subject: Re: USGenWeb
Cc: Bill Couch
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
At 12:12 AM 11/23/96 -800, David Kelley wrote:
>Is there information providing a synopsis of the USGenWeb's
>influence (or interference) with the Kentucky state page and you
>as original sponsor. I have been associated with Bill Couch's
>Arkansas page affected by the USGenWeb. I want to compare these
>cases.
I'm going to refer you back to Bill. He knows what went on in AR, and has all the information from me about what went on in KY.
The critical point is: when did USGenWeb get the idea they had some kind of influence over the state pages? That was after my time. Prior to that, we encouraged state coordinators to copy the format of the state page, and made recommendations about the format of the county pages. But these were unenforceable. The idea that USGenWeb could get rid of a state coordinator by stealing his page didn't occur to me.